Why Is the US a Military Industrial Complex? Essay Example

The United States as a Military-Industrial Complex

Military-Industrial Complex is a phrase (unofficial) that was first seen and used by an American report at the onset of the 20^th century. This term was to be immortalized by American President, Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell speech. It is used to symbolize the existence and development of a comfortable relationship between national armed forces, the military bases supporting these armed forces and the legislators. This paper will look at reasons why the United States is considered a Military-Industrial Complex as warned by President Eisenhower.

Political Contributions

The American political system and environment has created ample conditions for the development of military-industrial complex in the United States (Ledbetter 35). This is owing to the rise of security threats at the onset of the 21^st century. Terrorism has become one of the top ten concerns of an American citizen in the 21^st century. As such, there is political goodwill that favours the development of a military-industrial complex, with very few individuals opposing it.

This has further been catalysed by the international political atmosphere and structure within some parts of the world. The emergence of China and North Korea as potential nuclear superpowers, has contributed further to the increase in political goodwill and contribution that favours this system. In bid to secure its supremacy and influence the world over, United States politics has favoured the military-industrial complex.

Political Approval for Military Spending

The United States military is under the command of the president. However, military projects are almost always approved by the legislators (Segal and Burk 43). Almost all of the major projects carried out by the military are politically approved. There is huge political collateral in approval of military spending. This is owing to the fact that the military is the backbone of the supremacy of the United States as a superpower, apart from its economy.

The United States legislative wing has increased and approved military spending, especially after 9/11. This has seen the number of private companies working on homeland security, intelligence and counterterrorism, increase from 1,931 from 427. In the D.C. area alone, there have been 37 buildings constructed to increase the manpower and resources spent on national security (Gouliamos and Christos 23).

Lobbying to Support Bureaucracies

The government has always supported bureaucracies. The government is always looking to setup procedures and guidelines as to how military and defence agencies execute their functions. This is mainly to ensure a fair and just defence system.

Oversight of the Industry

The defence industry has very little oversight. This highlights the almost easy relationship between the national armed forces, the military bases supporting these armed forces and the legislators (MacDougall 40). This is mainly to give the defence agencies and forces leeway to execute their functions with little to no distractions and/or hindrances. This is evident in the manner in which government has allowed the military to spend on private contractors with very little oversight. Statistically, since 9/11, the military and national security agencies have outsourced huge contracts to private contractors (MacDougall 40). Some of these contractors have top level security clearances. A good example is Ed Snowden who receives very little oversight in terms of limitation and boundaries to what information they can access. This allows Ed Snowden the ability to tailor make his products and services to fit the requirements and needs of the military at the given point in time.

In conclusion, the United States can be considered as a Military-Industrial Complex owing to various factors. Political contributions have played a huge role in the acceptance of the military-industrial complex. The legislature and other political bodies have largely approved military spending, increasing it after 9/11. The government largely supports bureaucracies, generally favouring a military-industrial complex. There is also very little oversight over the defence industry.

Works Cited

Gouliamos, Kosta and Kassimeris Christos. The Marketing of War in the Age of Neo-Militarism. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Ledbetter, James. Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. Print.

MacDougall, Philip. Chatham Dockyard: The Rise and Fall of a Military Industrial Complex. Stroud: History, 2012. Print.

Segal, David R and James Burk. Military Sociology. Los Angeles: Sage, 2012. Print.

Swanson, David. The Military Industrial Complex at 50. Charlottesville: s.n., 2011. Print.